Skip to main content

tv   Media Buzz  FOX News  February 9, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PST

1:00 am
11:00 a.m.. on buzz beater this sunday, brian williams essentially suspending himself taking a leave from nbc nightly news after being forced to retract this false story about being on an army helicopter that was hit by enemy fire in iraq. >> two of our four helicopters were hit by ground fire including the one i was in will. >> no kidding? >> rpg and ak-47. >> saying he's sorry after furs h.will. >> no kidding? >> rpg and ak-47. >> saying he's sorry after furs h. army veterans knocked down his account. >> i want to apologize. i said i was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by rpg fire. i was instead in a following aircraft. >> with mounting questions about that apology, other williams
1:01 am
stories and now the brief leave of absence can the face of nbc news survive this credibility crisis. a national furor over vaccinating kids. >> this is the pandering that can be dangerous. rand paul is a doctor. i don't know where he is getting that data from. >> i don't think that we should be engaging people in this paranoia. >> these what you are. you're science deniers. >> but is it fair for the press to tight anti-vaccination movement to conservatives? >> plus rand paul rips a cnbc anchor in a very con tententious interview. >> part of the problem is where the interview is so slanted and full of distortions that you don't get useful information.
1:02 am
sgr was the senator treated unfairly or did he overreact? we'll go to the videotape in our new segment, media buzz saw. i'm howard kurtz and this is media bus. "#mediabuzz". "#mediabuzz". he brian williams told his staff yesterday it's become painfully apparent that he is too much a part of the news due to his own actions, but that he'll return to nightly news after several days of leave. the dramatic development rooted in the invasion of iraq when he was on an army helicopter ground grounded by a sand storm and he recounted what happened to another chopper. >> on the ground, we learned the chinook ahead of us was almost blown out of the sky. >> but his story kept changing and by 2013, the anchor was telling this version to david letterman and alec baldwin. >> two of our four helicopters were hit including the one i was in, rpg and ak-47. >> what happens the minute
1:03 am
everybody realizes you've been hit? >> we figure out how to land safely. and we did. we landed quickly an hard and we put down and we were stuck. >> did you think you would die? >> briefly.d hard and we put down and we were stuck. >> did you think you would die? >> briefly. >> he repeated it last week. >> the story started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an rpg. our traveling nbc news team was rescued surrounded and kept alive by an armored mechanized platoon. >> but army veterans on that mission told the stars and stripes newspaper williams was not on the chinook he was hit. >> i made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago. it did not take long to hear from some brave men and women in the air crews who were also in that desert.
1:04 am
i want to apologize. i said i was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by rpg fire. i was instead in a following aircraft. >> veterans who spoke to stars and stripes were fuming. >> what are these guys who were actually thinking he's been doing with this story? >> you uyou know, they position he think he wants the glory. sglechb the sglechb . >> joining us now, sharyl attkisson, david zurawik and paul farhi. let me take a moment to update you on some exclusive details i reported last night on brian williams stepped aside voluntarily. he was not prodded to do this by the nbc brass. there is no nbc internal investigation in to this matter. it's a fact gathering inquiry to
1:05 am
help nbc answer questions. there won't be any report on his conduct. and he is considering an invitation to go on david letterman show where you saw that clip thursday to discuss this further. you've had a little experience flying on military aircraft. what is the magnitude of brian williams' mistake about iraq? >> it's a large mistake because unless you have been on so many missions and shot at so many times that maybe you've confused which mission on which you were shot at and which ones you weren't, you know. but what strikes me is an even larger glaring thing that a lot of other people know, too. the people who were with you know, the crew knows you weren't shot at. and the network who where you worked at the time knows that you were not shot at. so as he was telling the story, there are a lot of people around him who i think knew it was not the case for quite a while. >> and williams already told america that it was another cop that was hit as we've shown in that brief clip from 2003. david, the big question.
1:06 am
what should nbc news do now faced with this crisis. >> >> well, a, i don't know -- of course none of us know -- >> what do you think should happen? will. >> i think he should no longer be manage editor and anchor of their lead newscast.ill. >> i think he should no longer be manage editor and anchor of their lead newscast.ll. >> i think he should no longer be manage editor and anchor of their lead newscast.. >> i think he should no longer be manage editor and anchor of their lead newscast.. >> i think he should no longer be manage editor and anchor of their lead newscast. >> i think he should no longer be manage editor and anchor of their lead newscast. and i wrote this wednesday. if they care about credibility. this is a serious, serious -- why would you trust anything this man says? it isn't just that he lied. it's the kind of lie he told. there are so many people in this country who are either part of a military family or served in the military who live every day with the wounds and the scars of those battles. here is this rich anchorman who is over there for a little time and he tries to steal some of the honor they earned. how in the world could anybody in a military family not look at him on television and have contempt for this man? i think they should do it.
1:07 am
will they do it? this is a test of nbc's moral character at this point. >> and i give him credit for putting his life at risk which makes it more inexplicable to me why he at the time thefelt the need about embellishing the story. an apology, but no word of support. how in your dealings how is nbc handling this? >> well they're trying to get beyond it. if they can. it's a real question, can they get beyond it. the lack of a statement of support for brian williams is striking in itself. but brian williams apparently did not want a particular statement of support because in the case of david gregory they supported him on "meet the press". look what happened to him. they do not want this kiss of death. >> a source told me it would be the kiss of death and yet a lot of people asking why nbc, you know -- it was not until late
1:08 am
friday that any statement at all was put out. and i find that odd given the magnitude of this problem. sharyl, you covered for cbs the story of hillary clinton. she was recounting what happened when she landed in bosnia back in 1996. let me play a brief clip. >> is that is senator clinton talking to me on the military flight and these are the pictures we recorded of the greeting ceremony. compare that to senator clinton's account. >> i remember landing under sniper fire. >> hillary clinton said she landed under sniper fire. you were on the trip. there was no sniper fire. she later backed off. do you see any similarities? >> strange similarities. and not the least of which is 12 years after the fact in both cases. just sort of a coincidence of time. also once hillary clinton's misstatement was exposed she doubled down instead of doing
1:09 am
sort of an apology, she actually said, yes, i shook hands with a little girl, but then i ran and ducked and ran for cover. so we did a second story that showed, no, she posed for pictures with 7th sgrader, she visit theed the troops. that remains unexplained. she didn't explained a she convinced herself that it happened, weren't there people around her such as chelsea who was on the trip saying, mom, we weren't shot ap. celebrities, sheryl crow, everybody. >> this is one of the stories everybody is talking about at the water cooler. why would brian williams feel the need do this. if i idea about that? >> the one thing i have avoided steadfastly is to try to psycho analyze, to try to do what is going in brian williams' head.
1:10 am
>> none of us can really answer. >> i don't think any of us can really answer it. but if you look at his career sense he took the anchor seat of branding himself, of promoting himself, and that's part the industry here today. here's the sin of this. he never took the journalism part of his job once he became anchor and managing editor as seriously as he took the celebrity portion. >> i don't think that's fair. this is a guy who has guest hosted "saturday night live," he goes on "the daily show," he uses his sense of to be more than just a reading off the prompter anchor. but he also has traveled around the world and when you say he didn't take the journalism part seriously, what do you base that on? >> when they gave him a prime time network magazine show, he showcased chelsea clinton as a special correspondent at $600,000. that's what i mean. >> let's not try to parse the
1:11 am
journalism because this isn't ultimately about journalism per se. it's about the promotion of the journalism. it's about what brian has said in the many years since he reported this story. there is not a real question about what he reported. it's the way he's characterized it since. and part of brian's charm is that he gets on these shows and he sells his charm he sells himself. that's why he's the number one anchor in part. but the question now is did he go too far in doing those things. >> 9 million viewers for nbc "nightly news". you made a point and i want to put up video from the"nightly news" about the ceremony of the hockey game about the way it was edited. so take a look at that. >> it appears to show him on the chinook the way they rode it and the way he spoke over it. and it appears to show afterwards then looking at the rpg injury to the chinook as if
1:12 am
he were on it and what i was saying is whoever looked at the video, producers, editors, at some point i will think would know he was not on that chinook. my question is who did this know this and were they forced to cut the video in a way that supported a story that they knew not to be true, were there complaints internally. >> the big problem with the apology i'm told, when he said he was in a following aircraft it sounded like he was 20 feet behind the chop their got hit. in fact he was in a different helicopter company that did pass this other group of helicopters, one which have wasof which was fired on. briefly when cnn reported based on the an interview with the pilot, that there was small arms fire. let's play a brief clip on cnn.
1:13 am
>> did the helicopter that you were in, that brian williams was in, did it take any rpg fire or small arms fire in. >> i was on the second aircraft and mr. williams was on board my aircraft. we took small arms fire. >> he has now retracted that and doesn't even appear to have been the pilot. >> i think cnn should have been more careful in this sense. when stars and stripes reported this story, they had a wall of people who were there talking about it. so all of a sudden on wednesday or thursday, one guy comes out and is going to contradict everything. you really have to vet that. if this is a discipline of verification, they did almost none of that. and as you reported, the next day he recanted totally, saying he didn't want to talk about it anymore and disappeared. and cnn called it revision. they were they were revising. it was a retraction. >> it wasn't jake tapper, it was another cnn reporter.
1:14 am
and another problem for brian williams this new york "post" cover headlines calling him lying brian, the pinocchio nose growing. it's become a cultural story and story every makes fun of and that is not a comfortable place for an anchor to be. we're not done with this. send me a tweet. @howardkurtz. we'll read some of your messages later. when we come back, more on the brian williams saga with new questions being raised about his hurricane katrina reporting. is this just piling on? and later a look at the coverage of the vaccination uproar and whether some politicians are being treated unfairly.
1:15 am
1:16 am
1:17 am
there are also new questions about brian williams reporting
1:18 am
on hurricane katrina. >> when you look out of your hotel room and watch a man float by face down when you see bodies that you last saw in indonesia and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country. >> the new orleans advocate says it doesn't believe williams saw floating bodies. but yesterday a respected newspaper saying there was water there and a couple people had seen dead bodies. is this now piling on? >> that's what is really going to be tough i think for williams and nbc is everybody will go over every inch of this and it will be fact checked that way. i thought on this one i thought, well, when i first heard it i thought either you can find
1:19 am
out -- there is a fact. either there was water there or not, let's find it out before publishing it. so i think in some case there is is a tendency to do that. >> i went to new orleans with brey an brian williams some months after katrina and he showed me where he saw the first body. he was very emotionally invested in this story. went back to new orleans eight or nine times. so this didn't ring true to me. >> the floating body story is the least questionable element of what he has said about his katrina coverage. he said that gangs were overrunning his hotel. no the hotel was a staging area for law enforcement. very, very unlikely that there were gangs overrunning that hotel. there were other claims, as well. and all of them add up to a record, not a piling organization but a record that needs to be examined. >> now we've reached the point where some media outlets said because brian is famously a new
1:20 am
jersey volunteer fireman at one time he said he saved a pup if i from a fire, puppies from a fire. so it comes back to the question of the anchor credibility, and what nbc news -- how it deals with it. >> maybe the biggest problem is not just the examination of what he's said in the past, but how he moves forward. what sort of things can he cover now. let's say there is another military conflict. there will be lingering questions. >> just briefly, he has ten year career, some people like brian williams some people think he leans to the left. but is that career just sort of wiped out by the one egregious terrible mistake? >> i don't know that it's wiped out. he's actually been a very good reporter over the years. the question is his credibility so damaged that you can't watch brian williams deliver the news and believe what he's saying.
1:21 am
that's what anchor men sell. does he still have it. >> and if he loses a piece of thatted that audience that's a big big. but if he's two or three instead of one, that's another thing sflp we'll have to go. thanks for joining us. ahead with the isis butchers putting out that video of burning a jordanian pilot to death, how should the media handle those horrifying images some but up next president obama causes a furor by bringing christianity into a discussion of isis but some media outlets gont think that's news.
1:22 am
1:23 am
1:24 am
president obama made some very controversial remarks at a white house prayer breakfast this week, but the coverage has been remarkably spotty. here's what the president said.
1:25 am
>> we see isil, brutal that in the name of religious uncarries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. unless we got on our high horse and position thatthink this is unique remember during the crusade, people committed terrible deeds in the name of christ. >> joining us now nina easton, jim geraghty, and mara liasson. jim, the president makes these very controversial marks. the cameras are rolling. newscasts devoted zero minutes. >> because these are embarrassing remarks. we're all watching isis setting a guy on fire and then at the national prayer breakfast, he thinks highest priority is high horse of american christians. most krichristians are saying why
1:26 am
are you giving me grief in? because the fact president obama chose to -- >> are you suggesting that because this was embarrassing for the president, some found it offensive, that's the reason it didn't make air? in strange >> strangely enough, people are much more interested in the gaffes of their opponents than the ones they like. >> at the very least, how far you view these remarks, isn't it a story in? >> i think it's a story. there might have been a lot going on this week, but it is a story. it is true the ku klux klan burned crosses. he's factually correct. but there has been so much coverage of the president's unwillingness to call isis cad
1:27 am
radical islamists. and i thought it was interesting that he called them a vicious death cult. he's tiptoeing his way to strike them that they have an ideology, they're not just criminals. >> so vicious deltath cult, the crewusades crusades. again, isn't it worth covering? >> it wasn't just offensive. the "new york times" seems to think that it was just a bunch of christians on the right who were are offended by it. because it's a broader story here. it's a question of whether the president is down playing the terrorist threat and it's a question of whether he is trying to dws connect the word islam from the word terror. and actually the "washington post" did a good job of pointing out how he -- in a story about the prayer breakfast, how he is trying to do that. and he's recently said this is a
1:28 am
perversion of islam. the other thing about the press coverage it didn't challenge the president. what christian's role in the civil rights movement, martin luther king, there was no push back on that from print papers that actually covered it. >> when you don't cover it at all, you don't get any analysis or context which is why i ifind this puzzling. coming up, a huge flap over some saying childhood vaccinations should be voluntary. but is this a problem for conservatives? and rand paul denounce as cnbc anchor for loaded questions. was the interview fair.
1:29 am
1:30 am
1:31 am
the question of vaccinations is suddenly ineffecting the presidential campaign. "new york times" calls the controversy, quote, a twist on an old problem for the republican party. how to approach matters that are largely settled among
1:32 am
scientists,. that drew a rebuke from matt lauer. >> becomes a hot potato. liberal "new york times" puts this way and let's make it clear, this does not break down completely between the right and the left. >> everybody wants to paint this as a right wing thing. it's not. >> still, there was strong criticism across the media over interviews with two likely 20167 contenders, chris christie and rand paul. >> i also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things, as well. >> i've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. i'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. i think they're a good thing. but i think the parents should have some input. the state isn't own your children. >> is the "new york times" justified in saying this is a political problem mainly for conservatives who don't like science? >> so outrageous. what it is the anti-vaccine
1:33 am
movement grew out of the liberal community, not from the right. and in fact there have been maps done showing where anti-vaccine movement has taken hold are liberal bastions. so that's outrageous. second of all, in terms of the campaign and the presidential politics, it's a gotcha cycle now. if you're running for president, you've got to be prepared and you've got to know what you're going to say. to me the winner this week was hillary clinton. what she does is she stays out of the news on controversial things like that until she can control it. so she controlled it with a tweet which is what other candidates should be saying which is saying it's not good is like saying the sky isn't blue. so i think a candidate's answer should have talked about the research that shows there is no connection between say autism and vaccines. >> and the media has a responsibility to say there is no connection. i know a minority feel passionately otherwise.
1:34 am
and some conservative parents and shallome liberal parents have not been vaccinating their kids. >> this is a cynical tone to the coverage. there is wide agreement that should you have your kids vaccinated. where there is serious does his agreement, if a participantsent says no should the government take them, force your child to be vaccinated? how about the am might beish some come we say we'll take your kids away? >> or say you have to home school. rand paul said he wasn't endorsing the view. is that a legitimate controversy for the press? >> yes. he's a medical doctor. the one study that said there was a tie between autism and
1:35 am
vaccinations was retracted and withdrawn in 2010. i think it's definitely legitimate. job is saying they will take their kids and forcibly vaccinate them. they are saying if you want on go to school in a public school where there are other kids that might have die pressed immune systems, they could be at arriving. but what i thought this whole thing showed was the state of play in the republican 2016 race. the two guys having problems, paul christie, couldn't get their act together. the two way tos having a great moment, scott walk jeb bush, were concise, yes, vaccinate, period, over and out.tos having a great moment, scott walk, jeb bush, were concise, yes, vaccinate, period, over and out. >> here is how rand paul handled it. he went for a vaccination shot. he took a "new york times" reporter with him to the very interesting media technique, but then, nina the senior editor at the daily beast justin miller, tweeted fu senator rand paul and
1:36 am
he didn't use the initials, he didn't responsible to our request to come on. he did apologize for the insult. what the -- >> i think rand paul is in a difficult position to try walk back what he said. >> what does that say about the senior editor at a news organization -- >> that's outrageous. >> at lo lot of allegedly mainstream journalists fing hate republicans. they hate rabd paul and the entire field and they believe there is utter contempt for them their voters and the whole base. twitter like alcohol doesn't change you, it only reveals you. >> especially if you're using alcohol while you're on it. i thought that was reprehensible reprehensible. i wanted to ten talking about brian williams. what do you think about the magnitude of the mistake brian williams has now apologized for and the way nbc is handling it.
1:37 am
>> the way nbc is handling it suggests that there could be more. they are taking him off they are are's investigating. >> they didn't take him off. >> he voluntarily stepped aside.are's investigating. >> they didn't take him off. >> he voluntarily stepped aside. but the network was warned about this a year ago. >> i haven't seen that confirmed. do you think nbc is being cautious? >> i think they're being cautious because sometimes when there is that kind of behavior could there be that kind of behavior in other incidents and then it becomes a big explosion. >> iish he from ishish ishwish he said i screwed up, i'm taking annen paid leave of absence to get my stuff together and realize what i've done wrong. that initial well, i'll sorry i mixed up which helicopter i was on, doesn't even come close to fixing it.sorry i mixed up which helicopter i was on, doesn't even come close to fixing it. the old saying the coverup is worse than the crime.
1:38 am
that measly mea culpa doesn't did justice to what he did. >> five years ago i would have said he can't survive this. but so many has changed in the news environment and answers are more media celebrities than they are journalists that i really think many he has a chance if they find nothing else like this. >> but hasn't so much also changed in terms of social media where he's getting battered on twitter? >> that's a really problem for him, but he's a very important part of the nbc franchise. they will have to make a decision if that's so undercut his credibility then he can't continue. >> i was on with bill o'reilly and and he said people don't karks it was care, it was a flap. he wasn't justifying it. brian williams understands he crewed up. it's hard to see somebody go through this whether you like him or don't. but this is a self-inflicted crisis. >> and i think if it's limited to this it could blow over.
1:39 am
our attention spans are on short. but if it goes beyond that he's in trouble. >> it's a really terrible time for nbc news to be running pro knows with michael douglas saying there are some things you never forget. >> all right. thanks very much for stopping by. ahead, what shoot media do when isis terrorists put out a video of burning a man to death? is there a compelling reason to show it? and later the press lets the president get away with a flaw as he serves beer to savannah guthrie.
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
most news organizations are refusing to carry the barbaric isis video of the terrorists burning a jordanian eyepilot to death. >> cnn has chosen not to knowshow these images. they are cruel and they are of high propaganda value to isis members and not something that the united states nor broadcasters have any interest in helping to propagate. >> this time a whole new level of brutality. >> but a few papers have published a fiery image. fox news has also put still
1:44 am
images on the air. and bret baier explained why. >> the imamges are brutal, you may want to turn away you may want to have the children leave the room. right now. but the reason we're showing you this is to bring you the reality of islamic terrorism and to label it as such. we feel you need to see it. >> sharyl attkisson this is a very difficult decision for news organizations. >> i think both sides make important points and i'm glad i'm not in the position of having to make that decision. i do think people can go seek out the video let's say news organizations decide that it's too distasteful to show it. i understand that argument. but it can be found in other places and maybe that's where it should stay where people can seek it out if they choose to see it on the internet. on the other hand, i do agree that with some people who argue if the american public isn't to some degree exposed to the level of brutality of these terrorist
1:45 am
acts, how are they going to make judgments. >> right, showing the evil that is isis and that's why it's such a close call because there are strong arguments on both sides. and the blaze have turned controversy by putting the full burning video as very carefully produced by isis online in the case of fox executive vice president john moody says wanted to give the readers the option for themselves the brutality. and i'm a little more sympathetic to that because people can now choose to click or not click on those videos. >> that's probably the way to do it if you had to make a choice. let people voluntarily seek it out in a controlled environment if they choose to, but don't force them to run across it if they happen to be just watching television. >> you might just be walking by and suddenly it pops up. the beheading images as well, how much do you show of it and are you doing what isis wants.
1:46 am
let's go back to our lead story on brian williams. a lot of people have been responding online saying it doesn't really matter whether he's in that chair or not because anchors are basically news readers. but he also has an important title of managing editor. >> this may be one reason to take a look at this trend in which the network even news anchors are also given the tilgtdtitle of managing editor. does that mean in cases where there are controversies that they are separated from sort of an independent look or i said view point of somebody who could say should you be doing this.said view point of somebody who could say should you be doing this. times they're sur roup rounded by yes people who won't tell them the hard truths because they in essence in charge of the show, in charge of the personnel. who wants to tell emperor that he's wear nothing clothes. >> titles aside you have an
1:47 am
anchor like bria making more than $10 million a year who is the franchise. people say it about the president, too, being surrounded by people telling you how great you are. so even the business about nbc not conducting an internal investigation, but a lot of people might say why not have an outside ombudsman or investigator look into this and it comes back to what you're saying. you have the guy who is the an authorize, the managing editor, the celebrity, are you on the payroll, it's hard to take that person onan authorize, the managing editor, the celebrity, are you on the payroll, it's hard to take that person on . >> and people are laying on on to whether that person survives. and if that person controversy, those under him don't want to be on the wrong side and punished for that later. i agree about the independent look. perhaps if i were in charge i would think of bringing somebody in like the pointer institute or
1:48 am
ask a news organization to come in and help. but then you are stuck. you've invited and outsider to come in and look at your organization. and if they find things embarrassing or damaging there's not much you can do about it. >> i would say too bad. at least you're showing that you'll be open that you're letting somebody who has an independent judgment investigate and let the chips fall where they may. people forget after dan rather in 2004 and the retraction of the story about president bush and the national guard, it was some months until he lost his job, but cbs wroughtbrought in two outside people. >> they did, somewhat belatedly. >> thanks very much. after the break we'll unveil a new segment called media buzz saw. starting with a contentious sitdown with rand paul on cnbc.
1:49 am
1:50 am
1:51 am
1:52 am
we're launching a new segment called media buzz saw oig where we look at how journal lists and politicians handle tv interviews. rand paul sat down with kelly evans and it was contentious from the opening seconds. >> did you really just say to laura ingram that you you position most vaccines in this country should be, quote, voluntary? >> well, i guess being for freedom would be really unusual. i guess i don't understand the point why that would be controversial. >> what rand paul said was strers controversial, but by starting with did you really just say, evans seemed to have a chip on her shoulder. >> senator i'm sure you know that most of the research on
1:53 am
this indicates that these actually cost more money over the long term than they save. >> that's incorrect. let's go back again. your premise is mistaken. let me finish -- hey. let me finish -- kelly -- >> i'm sorry gheo ahead. >> calm done a bit here kelly. >> shushing a host especially a woman, did not look gentlemenly but evans sounded copdone key sending. she asked about a news story on paul once organizing a protest group on optimal that will mal guests. >> any response to the "washington post" piece about the self-appointed board of colleague and relatives that were part of your apt that will mole gi group? >> once again you're mischaracterizing and confusing the whole situation. >> i apologize to the extent --
1:54 am
>> part of the problem is that you have interviews like this where the interview is so shapted and pull of it is torsions that you don't get useful information. i think this is what is bad about tv sometimes. so frankly, i think if we do this again, you need to try to start out with a little more objectivity going into the interview. >> you been the substance was legitimate, but she aggravated the senator with her tone. there are ways for a journalist to be very aggressive without alienating the politician who is your guest. still to come, your top tweets and a booze zi claim in a super bowl session with president obama.
1:55 am
1:56 am
fusion tv, a joints venture between abc and up any vision just put out a poll with the headline young people hit the polls and they want hillary. but the survey was done by a democratic polster and former obama adviser who has just been tapped as the postal for hillary clinton's campaign. seriously? couldn't fusion have found a neutral polster to avoid this embarrassing conflict? and that wasn't disclosed. getting a lot of tweets about brian williams.
1:57 am
fire him, or they prove today's journalism is worthness dribble. and loyal viewers would believe him if he said the sky was falling. and williams reflects the progressive liberal face, it does not matter. and williams should continue his acting a year career. ouch. many you saw this, savannah guthrie's live super bowl interview with president obama took place in white house kitchen and was rather chatty with the tougher questions reserved for the "today" show. she she broached light topics and then this. >> we make beer first president since george washington to make booze in the white house. so let's taste it. it's been well reviewed. let's see what you think. >> i'll take a tiny sip. >> i don't care if they were
1:58 am
drinking beer, but almost everyone in the media missed obama's gaffe. george washington wasn't brewing things up in the white house because it wasn't built yet. that's it for this edition of "#mediabuzz". we hope you'll like our facebook page. we post a lot of original kept there. we answer your questions. and you can always e-mail us@media buzz at we hope to hear from you. let us know what you were thinking about our show and about these media issues. we're back here every sunday. next sunday morning, 11 k:00 and then 5:00 eastern with the latest buzz. >> it is monday february 9th. a fox awe lertd. fighting back. they are carrying out dozens of air strikes in days. as lawmakers say our president is striking out on a strategy.
1:59 am
the urgent question, what happened to the last american hostage? >> breaking his silence. brand new developments in the deadly crash involving bruce jenner. the cardian patriarch now-- kardashian patriarch speaking out. >> they have royalty under the same roof. sam smith's huge scores, the surprise wins and the rockers who needed help remembering their lyrics. "fox & friends first" starts right now. >> beautiful shot of times square. you are watching "fox & friends first". it is monday. i am ainsley earhardt.
2:00 am
>> i am hert childers. thank you for starting your day and your week with us. jordan's air force pupilbling isis with a barrage of new air strikes. >> this as kayla mueller's parents hold out hope their daughter is still alive somewhere in syria. they are in washington where he is stepping up for lack of a strategy. >> you are right on the money. some of this is sort of political as we are useded to seeing in washington. lawmakers are quick to point out. especially because of what is visibly actionable and so difficult to identify. jordan has been hammering isis with air strikes with the jordanian pilot. the approach is working. >> there's a lot more to do. we have said since the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on